Martinez v. Dallas Central Appraisal District
339 S.W.3d 184
Tex. App.2011Background
- Martinez and three siblings own an undivided 25% interest in a Dallas residence he has used as his homestead for at least 25 years.
- DCAD set a 2003-2005 homestead cap and later applied a 25% ownership adjustment for 2004-2006 after recognizing multiple owners.
- Trial court denied Martinez's requests to modify 2004-2006 appraised values and upheld DCAD's treatment under applicable sections.
- Martinez challenged DCAD's calculation of the ten percent cap and the application of homestead exemptions for 2004-2006; he abandoned ownership and market-value challenges at trial.
- The court held the ten percent cap applies to the entire residence homestead, not pro rata by ownership, and that DCAD correctly applied exemptions but erred on the cap and attorney’s fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cap on appraised value and ownership fractionality | Martinez: cap cannot be prorated to 25% ownership. | DCAD: cap prorates with ownership percentage. | Cap applies to entire homestead value; error in prorating. |
| 15,000 school exemption | Exemption should apply to 25% ownership without reduction. | 11.41(a) applies exemptions pro rata; correct | DCAD properly applied the 15,000 exemption pro rata. |
| Five-thousand optional school exemption | Martinez entitled to at least $5,000 as minimum optional exemption. | Exemption limited pro rata by 11.41(a). | Exemption calculated pro rata; no error. |
| Application of local school exemption (DISD) cap | Argues misapplication of the local exemption as to percentage. | DCAD correctly prorated under 11.41(a). | DCAD's pro rata application sustained. |
| Attorney's fees under §42.29 | Prevailing on excessive appraisal entitles fees; mandatory. | Fees discretionary or capped by statute. | Attorney's fees awarded; remanded to assess statutory cap compliance. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bader v. Dallas Central Appraisal Dist., 139 S.W.3d 778 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2004) (ten percent cap construed for whole residence)
- Aaron Rents, Inc. v. Travis Cent. Appraisal Dist., 212 S.W.3d 665 (Tex.App.-Austin 2006) (fee Awards under §42.29 mandatory when prevailing in excessive appraisal)
- Zapata v. Appraisal Dist. of San Patricio County, 90 S.W.3d 847 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 2002) (fee awards under §42.29 mandatory when prevailing)
- Bocquet v. Herring, 972 S.W.2d 19 (Tex. 1998) (mandatory versus discretionary attorney's fees; interpretation)
- Kimbrough v. Fox, 631 S.W.2d 606 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 1982) (statutory discretion vs. mandatory fee awards)